Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and network profile is covered. The description adds useful context that it is PDS-agnostic and that the response shape varies with input specificity, but says nothing about auth requirements, error behavior, or rate limits. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate but not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core verb and resource, then input forms, then output variability, then scope. Every sentence earns its place and no filler is present.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Input forms, output variability, and PDS scope are covered, and an output schema plus full schema descriptions handle return values and pagination. The one missing piece is routing guidance against the many overlapping read siblings, which an agent choosing among 26 tools would find useful.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both the uri forms and the limit/cursor/include semantics are already fully documented in the schema. The description restates the input forms and adds nothing about the optional enrichments or pagination beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a clear verb+resource ('Resolve any AT Protocol identifier to JSON') and enumerates the accepted input forms, so an agent knows exactly what it consumes and produces. It does not explicitly name siblings like get_record, get_profile, or get_did_document that overlap on at:// inputs, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage by explaining that output depends on input specificity (profile vs collection page vs record), which tells an agent something about when the tool is appropriate. However, it never states when to prefer it over get_record, list_records, or verify_handle, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.